Impeachment Hearings

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Some rather off-topic posts discussing President Obama have been split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120762-obama-split-from-impeachment-hearings/

 

 

[dimreepr]

 

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Crime is also irrelevant. Trump is the executive in charge of the justice department. He cannot be charged with a crime by a department he commands. This is why impeachment, a political solution, is a power granted to the congress by the constitution itself. 

It seems to fall short of justice.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

What crime are you suggesting required intent where Trump didn't have intent.

Bribery would (though that is not in the articles of impeachment...it's noticeably left out). Also working for his personal interest against the national interest...thus abuse of power. 

What crime, exactly, is it clear that Trump committed?

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Bribery would (though that is not in the articles of impeachment...it's noticeably left out). Also working for his personal interest against the national interest...thus abuse of power. 

Can you give me an example of how someone might commit bribery but not have intent?

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

It seems to fall short of justice.

Well, that is a matter of interpretation, but regardless, that is the system we have in place.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you give me an example of how someone might commit bribery but not have intent?

 

No. That's why I used that example.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Also working for his personal interest against the national interest...thus abuse of power. 

I looked up "abuse of power" on Wikipedia and saw no reference to "intent" as a requirement. Can you provide some reference?

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Well, that is a matter of interpretation, but regardless, that is the system we have in place.

is it better than its replacement?

 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

is it better than its replacement?

 

What is its replacement?

[iNow]

Doesn’t matter. It’s off topic. Dim should open a new thread if he wishes to explore better systems of governance and improved ways to force accountability of our leaders. This thread is about the Trump impeachment specifically. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by iNow

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is its replacement?

The constitution

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I looked up "abuse of power" on Wikipedia and saw no reference to "intent" as a requirement. Can you provide some reference?

I don't think it would be required in all cases...but I'm suggesting it would in the case of using the power of office for intention of personal interest while it is at the same not intended as being in the national interest.

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. That's why I used that example.

Sorry, I'm confused by what you are trying to convey. You said

Quote

Trump doesn't think everything through

to which I replied 

Quote

 

Which is of course not an excuse to justify a crime.

You then said

Quote

It is if the crime requires intent.

Which sounds like you are saying it is not really a crime if there is no intent, so I asked

Quote

What crime are you suggesting required intent where Trump didn't have intent.

To which you responded 

Quote

Bribery

But when I asked for an example of how you can have "bribery without intent" you said you cannot come up with an example.

So how can Trump be justified in committing the crime of bribery without intent, if intent is not required for bribery to take place?

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The constitution

I have no idea what you are talking about.

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't think it would be required in all cases...but I'm suggesting it would in the case of using the power of office for intention of personal interest while it is at the same not intended as being in the national interest.

Can you please provide a reference to support that assertion?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

What crime are you suggesting required intent where Trump didn't have intent.

 

I answered "Bribery..."

Bribery requires intent.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

 

But when I asked for an example of how you can have "bribery without intent" you said you cannot come up with an example.

 

...because it requires intent...I cannot think of an example where it does...

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

 

So how can Trump be justified in committing the crime of bribery without intent, if intent is not required for bribery to take place?

 

There is no such thing.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

 

... if intent is not required for bribery to take place?

 

It is required. Without intent it is not bribery.

[zapatos]

Ah, thanks. 

So you are saying that Trump committing bribery isn't a crime because he didn't think things through and therefore there was no intent.

Do you suppose it works that way for other crimes? For example, when I was in college a roommate moved out of the house without paying his portion of his final month's rent, thus leaving me stuck with the bill. I had intended to go over to his new apartment and take some of his things and essentially hold them "hostage" until he paid what he owed. If I had done that and he called the police on me, could I have claimed I didn't think things through (meaning there was no 'intent' to commit the crime of burglary) and thus be found innocent?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Clearly a conflict of interest...extremely suspect...but no hard evidence of a crime.

Why is this relevant? It doesn’t need to be a crime.

 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You can't call it murder if the "murdered's" still alive...even if he looks like he's in critical condition.

Then it’s attempted murder, along with other possible crimes

 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Note that the Democrats, as much as they would like to have, chose not to include bribery in the articles of impeachment. 

They recognized, at least for that, it didn't meet the legal definition.

Because it’s not a legal issue. It’s a constitutional one.

 

 

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

In this case, the analogy is looking at the Bidens. If Trump believed they did wrong, then he had reason to investigate them. That is the excuse Trump is using. Right or wrong, that's basically the gist of it. 

Does that standard apply to investigating Trump? Because the administration is sure complaining a lot about that investigation.

[Carrock]

Just a point that doesn't seem to be getting much attention.

Trump didn't 'just' delay payment to Ukraine, he ensured that he could never order some of the money paid because the delay had been too long.

If democrats had joined republicans in support of POTUS' actions and opposed a continuing resolution which allowed the payment of all the money, Trump would have succeeded in his 'no quid pro quo' punishment of Ukraine for not announcing new 2016/Biden investigations.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/19/ukraine-military-aid-extension-passes-us-house-after-white-house-delay/ 

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON―The U.S. House on Thursday passed legislation to make sure Ukraine can spend $250 million in military aid after White House delayed it this summer.

The language was among provisions tacked to a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown through Nov. 21 to buy more time for Congress’s spending negotiations.....

 

The CR passed the House with a bipartisan 301-123, though one notable “no” was House Armed Services Committee ranking member Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, who said it brakes the budget deal’s promise of “stable and predictable funding” for the military.

“We cannot ask the troops once again to pay for Congress’s inability to get our work done, or hold them hostage to either party’s partisan desires,” Thornberry said.

 

Is Mac Thornberry referring to Congress and the Senate's failure to remove Trump from office before he could block the Ukraine money?

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why is this relevant? It doesn’t need to be a crime.

Because if it was a crime that would make it pointedly worse.

What has Trump done since inauguration that is pointedly worse than many things he did prior to being elected?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Then it’s attempted murder, along with other possible crimes

How do you know this? No evidence was given with regard to this example when dimreepr suggested it.

Do you go by the evidence? Or because it is Trump/Trump like example?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Because it’s not a legal issue. It’s a constitutional one.

If it was clear that Trump had committed legal bribery, it absolutely would have been included.

The argument that it doesn't have to be a crime is pertinent, but without the crime it leaves it more open to judgement and politics.

If that argument holds for the House it applies to the Senate.

And it becomes weaker when it comes to the election. My opinion of course but would anyone disagree with that?

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Ah, thanks. 

So you are saying that Trump committing bribery isn't a crime because he didn't think things through and therefore there was no intent.

 

I think the fact that he seems to react without thinking things through..."what about the Bidens...why are they picking on me and my electoral college landslide?" (LOL)... muddies the waters and makes intent to affect the 2020 election, as his sole purpose, more debatable.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Do you suppose it works that way for other crimes? For example, when I was in college a roommate moved out of the house without paying his portion of his final month's rent, thus leaving me stuck with the bill. I had intended to go over to his new apartment and take some of his things and essentially hold them "hostage" until he paid what he owed. If I had done that and he called the police on me, could I have claimed I didn't think things through (meaning there was no 'intent' to commit the crime of burglary) and thus be found innocent?

I think so...assuming you had been in the habit of doing this type of thing for other reasons, bizarre or otherwise...you would have an argument against the intent part of your apparent crime. I have no idea what might have compelled you...where Trump at least can point to other quite conceivable motives.

Edited December 14, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Because if it was a crime that would make it pointedly worse.

What has Trump done since inauguration that is pointedly worse than many things he did prior to being elected?

Pretty much everything, since he has done it as president.

 

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How do you know this? No evidence was given with regard to this example when dimreepr suggested it.

Do you go by the evidence? Or because it is Trump/Trump like example?

Presenting it as murder carries certain connotations  I went with the description 

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it was clear that Trump had committed legal bribery, it absolutely would have been included.

You don’t actually know this. 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Pretty much everything, since he has done it as president. 

If not so otherwise, that's simply a result of you democratic process. Maybe the focus should be on winning the next election instead of overturning the results of the last one...by offering something more compelling to voters.

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Presenting it as murder carries certain connotations  I went with the description 

How can you be sure not to make the same type of mistake on these specific articles of impeachment?

Precedent matters, and the election is less than a year away.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don’t actually know this. 

Obviously opinion. You, or anyone else seriously claim to not share it?

It would have been a serious blunder otherwise. (IMO of course)

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe the focus should be on winning the next election instead of overturning the results of the last one...

This framing is misguided and wrong. I don’t believe you’re intentionally presenting falsehoods, but I definitely think you’ve not properly thought through this particular Republican talking point.  

If Trump does get impeached, then Pence becomes president and the policies being enacted and enforced would be largely the same as they are today (and potentially worse in some ways). As Pence was also a winner of the last election, you’re wrong to conflate impeachment with overturning of that last election.

It’s about removing Trump for wrongdoing while in office, not about the last election  

Further, if you discover your uncle is cheating during a game of Trivial Pursuit by googling all the answers on his phone, it would be a mistake to suggest we simply decide the winner of the game by moving forward without changing anything and allowing his cheating to continue. Yet that’s precisely what you’re recommending to your friends here in the US. 

[rangerx]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If not so otherwise, that's simply a result of you democratic process. Maybe the focus should be on winning the next election instead of overturning the results of the last one...by offering something more compelling to voters.

There's that off topic narrative again. The disassociation with impeachment and projection what democrats will do. The bogus assertion this impeachment is little more than a re-litigated election or a foregone conclusion.

All the while that every perceived gaffe by democrats is a vote for Trump. Joe said heck, so they'll will vote for the pussy grabbing, russian loving, lying POS. The opposite is true.

So JC, you still haven't answered my Devin Nunes question, so I will ask it again.

WTF was Nunes doing speaking with Lev Parnas?

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, rangerx said:

WTF was Nunes doing speaking with Lev Parnas?

I know you may find this hard to believe, but I wouldn't know.

 

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

This framing is misguided and wrong. I don’t believe you’re intentionally presenting falsehoods, but I definitely think you’ve not properly thought through this particular Republican talking point.  

If Trump does get impeached, then Pence becomes president and the policies being enacted and enforced would be largely the same as they are today (and potentially worse in some ways). As Pence was also a winner of the last election, you’re wrong to conflate impeachment with overturning of that last election.

It’s about removing Trump for wrongdoing while in office, not about the last election  

Further, if you discover your uncle is cheating during a game of Trivial Pursuit by googling all the answers on his phone, it would be a mistake to suggest we simply decide the winner of the game by moving forward without changing anything and allowing his cheating to continue. Yet that’s precisely what you’re recommending to your friends here in the US. 

What  falsehood am I presenting?

I'm presenting my opinion, which is that the Democrats current course on this is misguided and wrong.

 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What  falsehood am I presenting?

If Pence was also elected (and he was elected as VP in case Trump could no longer serve), and if impeachment removes Trump / moves Pence from VP to POTUS, how then is impeachment overturning the previous election?

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I know you may find this hard to believe, but I wouldn't know.

Well, disassociation isn't exoneration and ignorance is not bliss.

He was caught, red handed. Communicating with an indicted party directly involved in the Ukraine scandal, yet conservatives remain oblivious to the fact.

How about Juliani? WTF's with that?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

If Pence was also elected (and he was elected as VP in case Trump could no longer serve), and if impeachment removes Trump / moves Pence from VP to POTUS, how then is impeachment overturning the previous election?

It would invalidate Trump's election to POTUS.